| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 23 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 56:53:38 |
| Calls: | 584 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 1,139 |
| D/L today: |
179 files (27,921K bytes) |
| Messages: | 112,134 |
On 03/07/2025 20:14, Scott wrote:
Yes, it does appear to be far more limited than I thought it would be:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burghead_Transmitting_Station#/media/
File:Moray_UK_location_map.svg
I suppose the RTS coverage may a bit better if lower signal strength
can be used.
You often read people from down South who think Long Wave has universal >coverage. Might have had in the past when everyone had long wire
antenna and much less electrical interference'
Years ago we were sent a frequency standard to use at work that used >Droitwich (probably when still 200 KHz) but it was useless and we
returned it.
We had one like that but gave it away, changed it for one of Leo Bodnars
GPS units excellent performer can set any output frequency you like:)..
Op 20-6-2025 om 17:40 schreef Scott:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 Mark Carver-a wrote:
On 20/06/2025 09:47, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
On 2025/6/20 9:17:56, Mark Carver wrote:
[]
Statement from HM Government on the switch off
<https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-steps-in-to-protect- consumers-with-old-energy-meters>
Two irritating parts from that:
"Ministers have taken action to ensure industry delivers a better phase >>>> out plan from 30 June, ensuring working families can continue to go
about their home lives as normal."
The use of the party political phrase "working families" is irritating >>>> and condescending - and also could be misinterpreted (does it mean
retired folk, or single working people, are going to miss out?).
"The RTS uses the same infrastructure as the BBCrCOs longwave radio
signal
to tell older electricity meters when to switch between peak and off-
peak rates. The infrastructure underpinning the signal is reaching the >>>> end of its life, meaning the equipment that sends the radio signal can >>>> no longer be adequately maintained. "
It's not clear there whether they mean the data-specific parts; if they >>>> mean the radio transmitters, we've already discussed that here -
dismissing the "only X valves left in the world" aspect, as solid-state >>>> transmitters for LF are widely available. If it _is_ the data part of
the system, then (a) it shouldn't be impossible to maintain it (b)
mentioning the BBC LW part is (if it _is_ the data part that's the
problem) misleading.
It's the power amps (i.e. the valves) that are shagged out at Droitwich. >>>
It's a pair operating at 200 kW each, so if one does conk out, the other >>> will keep going, with of course only a drop of 3dB in radiated output
Do the LW transmitters still operate at full power? I thought the
trend was to reduce output at AM transmitters to cut costs (and also
because there is less foreign interference).
According to this site Droitwich is at 250 kW.
I thought it used to be 500 kW.
<http://www.mwlist.org/mwlist_quick_and_easy.php?area=1&kHz=198>
Yes, someone had told me recently that Droitwich 198 reduced its
power from 500 to 250 kW about a year ago.
On 13.07.2025 15:13 Uhr Mark Carver wrote:
Yes, someone had told me recently that Droitwich 198 reduced its
power from 500 to 250 kW about a year ago.
Thanks. It seems that the signal power is lower when using certain SDRs.
Is the reason known for that?
Is it only the situation that the electricity industry now pays for the
TX power and not the BBC or do they want to make people stop using LW?
Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> wrote:
On 13.07.2025 15:13 Uhr Mark Carver wrote:
Yes, someone had told me recently that Droitwich 198 reduced its
power from 500 to 250 kW about a year ago.
Thanks. It seems that the signal power is lower when using certain SDRs.
Is the reason known for that?
Is it only the situation that the electricity industry now pays for the
TX power and not the BBC or do they want to make people stop using LW?
It would be interesting to know how many people are actually listening to Radio4 on LW these days.
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> wrote:
On 13.07.2025 15:13 Uhr Mark Carver wrote:
Yes, someone had told me recently that Droitwich 198 reduced its
power from 500 to 250 kW about a year ago.
Thanks. It seems that the signal power is lower when using certain SDRs. >>>
Is the reason known for that?
Is it only the situation that the electricity industry now pays for the
TX power and not the BBC or do they want to make people stop using LW?
It would be interesting to know how many people are actually listening to
Radio4 on LW these days.
I use it for listening on journeys in the van, the quality is adequate
in the circumstances, the signal never fades for more than a few moments
in underpasses and there is no need for re-tuning.
When I am camping, I use a small radio which has MW, SW and VHF. It is
a real nuisance to find a suitable station and I often can't be bothered
with it and give up.
On 13.07.2025 15:13 Uhr Mark Carver wrote:
Yes, someone had told me recently that Droitwich 198 reduced its
power from 500 to 250 kW about a year ago.
Thanks. It seems that the signal power is lower when using certain SDRs.
Is the reason known for that?
Is it only the situation that the electricity industry now pays for the
TX power and not the BBC or do they want to make people stop using LW?
On Sun, 13 Jul 2025 18:56:45 +0200, Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> wrote:
On 13.07.2025 15:13 Uhr Mark Carver wrote:
Yes, someone had told me recently that Droitwich 198 reduced its
power from 500 to 250 kW about a year ago.
Thanks. It seems that the signal power is lower when using certain SDRs.
Is the reason known for that?
Is it only the situation that the electricity industry now pays for the
TX power and not the BBC or do they want to make people stop using LW?
Does it make a big difference when the logarithmic effect is taken
into account? Given that most of the interference seems to come from electronic equipment, does doubling or halving the output make a big difference? Also, I understood - maybe less so for LW - that there is
now a lot less foreign interference to contend with.
On 14/07/2025 09:13, Scott wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jul 2025 18:56:45 +0200, Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> wrote:
On 13.07.2025 15:13 Uhr Mark Carver wrote:
Yes, someone had told me recently that Droitwich 198 reduced its
power from 500 to 250 kW about a year ago.
Thanks. It seems that the signal power is lower when using certain SDRs. >>>
Is the reason known for that?
Is it only the situation that the electricity industry now pays for the
TX power and not the BBC or do they want to make people stop using LW?
Does it make a big difference when the logarithmic effect is taken
into account? Given that most of the interference seems to come from
electronic equipment, does doubling or halving the output make a big
difference? Also, I understood - maybe less so for LW - that there is
now a lot less foreign interference to contend with.
Where I live (a large village) the LW and MW bands are full of
electrical and electronic interference. Even the thumping great (albeit
3dB less) 198 signal is unlistenable (unless youAre a die hard anorak)
However, I think it takes a lot of interference to stop RTS decoding
from working (well enough).
On Sun, 13 Jul 2025 18:56:45 +0200, Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> wrote:
On 13.07.2025 15:13 Uhr Mark Carver wrote:
Yes, someone had told me recently that Droitwich 198 reduced its
power from 500 to 250 kW about a year ago.
Thanks. It seems that the signal power is lower when using certain
SDRs.
Is the reason known for that?
Is it only the situation that the electricity industry now pays for
the TX power and not the BBC or do they want to make people stop
using LW?
Does it make a big difference when the logarithmic effect is taken
into account? Given that most of the interference seems to come from electronic equipment, does doubling or halving the output make a big difference? Also, I understood - maybe less so for LW - that there is
now a lot less foreign interference to contend with.
Apart from the two in Scotland of course. Would reducing the power of Droitwich affect the 'mush area' where the signal is received from
more than one transmitter? A beneficial effect I assume?
On 14.07.2025 09:13 Uhr Scott wrote:[]
difference? Also, I understood - maybe less so for LW - that there is
now a lot less foreign interference to contend with.
No other station is operating on 198 kHz anymore.
On 13.07.2025 15:13 Uhr Mark Carver wrote:
Yes, someone had told me recently that Droitwich 198 reduced its
power from 500 to 250 kW about a year ago.
Thanks. It seems that the signal power is lower when using certain SDRs.
Is the reason known for that?
Is it only the situation that the electricity industry now pays for the
TX power and not the BBC or do they want to make people stop using LW?
Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:There are always other ways - but people might also just stop listening
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> wrote:
On 13.07.2025 15:13 Uhr Mark Carver wrote:
Yes, someone had told me recently that Droitwich 198 reduced its
power from 500 to 250 kW about a year ago.
Thanks. It seems that the signal power is lower when using
certain SDRs.
Is the reason known for that?
Is it only the situation that the electricity industry now pays
for the TX power and not the BBC or do they want to make people
stop using LW?
It would be interesting to know how many people are actually
listening to Radio4 on LW these days.
I use it for listening on journeys in the van, the quality is
adequate in the circumstances, the signal never fades for more than
a few moments in underpasses and there is no need for re-tuning.
When I am camping, I use a small radio which has MW, SW and VHF.
It is a real nuisance to find a suitable station and I often can't
be bothered with it and give up.
Ok, IrCOll rephrase my query - I wonder how many people listening to R4
LW canrCOt listen by any other means.
any oldie who struggles to adapt to the ways of the twenty first century
need only ask their grandchildren for help.
You don?t need a data connection for a smart meter to act in dumb mode. >>Providing it has been programmed at installation, it will be able to >>operate Economy 7. It has an internal, battery backed, clock. See also >>meters with mechanical time switches.
Including changing the time?
Could RTS be added to FM or DAB?
(Other people still alive - and isn't one of the Ronnies?
[I know the other one wasn't as they had Four Candles at his funeral.])
it stuffed 36 kWh into his car in 4 minutes (adding
a range of 135 miles), but it cost, 90p/unit.
If I were to drive 300 miles to Cornwall and back, of course I'd be
forced to use public chargers, but that would be for holidays etc, not routine, so the overall cost would still be much lower than ICE
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 18:26:14 +0100, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> >wrote:
Could RTS be added to FM or DAB?
No, and even if it could, how would it help when all the meters are tuned
to long wave?
On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 10:41:48 GMT, Paul Ratcliffe <abuse@orac12.clara34.co56.uk78> wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 18:26:14 +0100, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk>
wrote:
Could RTS be added to FM or DAB?
No, and even if it could, how would it help when all the meters are tuned
to long wave?
Unsurprisingly, I did think of that. What I thought was in an area
with no mobile coverage, where a conventional smart meter cannot be
used, a different type of meter could be installed at a cost less than extending the mobile network. Then I asked the question!
On 2025/7/15 10:5:34, Scott wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 10:41:48 GMT, Paul Ratcliffe
<abuse@orac12.clara34.co56.uk78> wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 18:26:14 +0100, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> >>> wrote:
Could RTS be added to FM or DAB?
No, and even if it could, how would it help when all the meters are tuned >>> to long wave?
Unsurprisingly, I did think of that. What I thought was in an area
with no mobile coverage, where a conventional smart meter cannot be
used, a different type of meter could be installed at a cost less than
extending the mobile network. Then I asked the question!
I think Paul's meaning was that the cost of developing yet another type
of meter/receiver (and verifying that it worked in all necessary
locations) would maybe be more than just giving those few affected a
smart meter operating as just a dumb timeswitch, even if this meant
giving them an over-favourable tariff.
On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 12:03:41 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
On 2025/7/15 10:5:34, Scott wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 10:41:48 GMT, Paul Ratcliffe
<abuse@orac12.clara34.co56.uk78> wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 18:26:14 +0100, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> >>>> wrote:
Could RTS be added to FM or DAB?
No, and even if it could, how would it help when all the meters are tuned >>>> to long wave?
Unsurprisingly, I did think of that. What I thought was in an area
with no mobile coverage, where a conventional smart meter cannot be
used, a different type of meter could be installed at a cost less than
extending the mobile network. Then I asked the question!
I think Paul's meaning was that the cost of developing yet another type
of meter/receiver (and verifying that it worked in all necessary
locations) would maybe be more than just giving those few affected a
smart meter operating as just a dumb timeswitch, even if this meant
giving them an over-favourable tariff.
Does it have to be developed? Do any other countries use RDS or is
this uniquely British genius? My experience with mobile phone coverage suggests it may be optimistic to say that only be a few will be
affected.
Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 12:03:41 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
On 2025/7/15 10:5:34, Scott wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 10:41:48 GMT, Paul Ratcliffe
<abuse@orac12.clara34.co56.uk78> wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 18:26:14 +0100, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> >>>>> wrote:
Could RTS be added to FM or DAB?
No, and even if it could, how would it help when all the meters are tuned >>>>> to long wave?
Unsurprisingly, I did think of that. What I thought was in an area
with no mobile coverage, where a conventional smart meter cannot be
used, a different type of meter could be installed at a cost less than >>>> extending the mobile network. Then I asked the question!
I think Paul's meaning was that the cost of developing yet another type
of meter/receiver (and verifying that it worked in all necessary
locations) would maybe be more than just giving those few affected a
smart meter operating as just a dumb timeswitch, even if this meant
giving them an over-favourable tariff.
Does it have to be developed? Do any other countries use RDS or is
this uniquely British genius? My experience with mobile phone coverage
suggests it may be optimistic to say that only be a few will be
affected.
For those without coverage from the mobile network (south area) or the
Arqiva long range network (north area) a better solution would be allow connection via the userrCOs home WiFi network. Clearly security isnrCOt an issue as the mobile networks have solved that problem with wifi calling. ItrCOs obviously better to not use WiFi as it involves Joe Public in the loop and that becomes a support burden, so the existing methods should be the default.
On 2025/7/15 12:35:37, Tweed wrote:
Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 12:03:41 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
On 2025/7/15 10:5:34, Scott wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 10:41:48 GMT, Paul Ratcliffe
<abuse@orac12.clara34.co56.uk78> wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 18:26:14 +0100, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk>
wrote:
Could RTS be added to FM or DAB?
No, and even if it could, how would it help when all the meters are tuned
to long wave?
Unsurprisingly, I did think of that. What I thought was in an area
with no mobile coverage, where a conventional smart meter cannot be
used, a different type of meter could be installed at a cost less than >>>>> extending the mobile network. Then I asked the question!
I think Paul's meaning was that the cost of developing yet another type >>>> of meter/receiver (and verifying that it worked in all necessary
locations) would maybe be more than just giving those few affected a
smart meter operating as just a dumb timeswitch, even if this meant
giving them an over-favourable tariff.
Does it have to be developed? Do any other countries use RDS or is
this uniquely British genius? My experience with mobile phone coverage
suggests it may be optimistic to say that only be a few will be
affected.
If by RDS you mean radio data system (the system that shows what FM
station you're tuned to, does traffic report switching, switches to
another transmitter when stronger, and [though little used here?] showes >programme type), then no, lots of other countries use it - and use more
of its facilities, I think.
The problem with a switch from RTS on LW to _any_ other remote-control >system is that you'd have to test it works for every premises expected.
(And there probably _would_ be at least _some_ development involved.)>>
The "only a few" takes into account the numbers - _allegedly_ quite
small - currently using the LW system; _some_ of those would be in range
of the mobile (or Arqiva) system, leaving a smaller number. _Arguably_, >giving those just a timeswitch (which it would probably be cheaper to
use a smartmeter in semi-dumb mode than a specific timeswitch, as
coverage may increase in time and that would avoid going round _again_
to fit smart meters) and a generous tariff.>
For those without coverage from the mobile network (south area) or theThis has some advantages, but would create yet another split/category:
Arqiva long range network (north area) a better solution would be allow
connection via the userAs home WiFi network. Clearly security isnAt an
issue as the mobile networks have solved that problem with wifi calling.
ItAs obviously better to not use WiFi as it involves Joe Public in the loop >> and that becomes a support burden, so the existing methods should be the
default.
those who don't have home wifi. This is likely to be higher than might
be at first thought, as - I suspect, I have no knowledge - a significant >number of the premises currently being switched via LW are unattended
and/or remote sites, most of which _won't_ have wifi.Of course, I've
long thought that broadband should become a universal provision, but
even then (and that's a whole different debate anyway), what about the >premises that don't have any telecommunications connection at all. (I
was going to say "don't have a landline", but that gets confused with POTS.)
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 14:21:44 +0100, Mark Carver <mark@invalid.com> wrote:
it stuffed 36 kWh into his car in 4 minutes (adding
a range of 135 miles), but it cost, 90p/unit.
So ||32.40 for 135 miles gives 24p/mile which doesn't seem like much of
a deal.
If I were to drive 300 miles to Cornwall and back, of course I'd be
forced to use public chargers, but that would be for holidays etc, not
routine, so the overall cost would still be much lower than ICE
But you'd have to find a charger in the place where you are going or
more likely end up wasting the best part of a day of your holiday getting
to one and back and waiting for it to do the business.
I doubt they'd like that, anytime the homeowner changes ISP, the
smartmeter loses its connection ... there was a reasonable suggestion
that FTTP ONTs could have a zigbee gateway,njust for meter networks ...
recharged (and planned a two hour lunch break around it) at Exeter M5 services.
Two irritating parts from that:
"Ministers have taken action to ensure industry delivers a better phase
out plan from 30 June, ensuring working families can continue to go
about their home lives as normal."
The use of the party political phrase "working families" is irritating
and condescending - and also could be misinterpreted (does it mean
retired folk, or single working people, are going to miss out?).
On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 18:28:27 +0100, Mark Carver <mark@invalid.com> wrote:
recharged (and planned a two hour lunch break around it) at Exeter M5
services.
Who has a two hour lunch break?
The horror of being stuck somewhere like that for so long...
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 09:47:18 +0100, J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
Two irritating parts from that:
"Ministers have taken action to ensure industry delivers a better phase
out plan from 30 June, ensuring working families can continue to go
about their home lives as normal."
The use of the party political phrase "working families" is irritating
and condescending - and also could be misinterpreted (does it mean
retired folk, or single working people, are going to miss out?).
Yes, that f*ing annoys me too.